Gurcharan Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

J.M. Tandon, J.—The appellants filed an application for the ejectment of Joginder Singh respondent No. 5 (tenant) (hereafter the respondent) on form ''L'' under S. 14-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereafter the Punjab Act) from the land measuring 57 Kanals 10 Marlas in village Mohan Singhwala, Tahsil Zira, District Ferozpur, on the ground that the latter had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause and to cultivate the land in the manner and to the extent customary in the locality. Their application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on Jan. 2, 1975. The appellants filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector on Aug. 22, 1975, holding that the respondent had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. The respondent was ordered to be ejected from the land which being the surplus area of the appellants was directed to be allotted to some other eligible tenant by the appropriate authority. The respondent feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector filed an appeal which was allowed by the Commission on Sep. 28, 1977. The order of the Collector dated Aug. 22, 1975, was set aside. The appellants filed a revision against the order of the Commissioner which was dismissed on Aug. 4, 1978. The appellants assailed the orders passed against them in C. W. P. No. 4803 of 1978 which was dismissed vide order dated March 5, 1980 reported in 1980 PLJ 458 against which the present letters patent appeal is directed.

The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the respondent was resettled on the surplus land of the appellants in 1969 under the provisions of the Punjab Act. The respondent accepted the appellants as his landlords. The respondent was a tenant under the appellants when the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, (hereafter the Act) cam into force. The surplus land of the appellants allotted to the respondent stood utilised when the Act came into force. This area did not vest in the State Government under S. 8 of the Act. The Scheme framed under S. 11(2) of the Act could be made only in relation to the land vested in the State. In view of the fact that the area in dispute did not vest in the State, it could not be covered by the Punjab Utilisation of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 (hereafter the Scheme), with the result that irrespective of the provision contained in para 13 of the Scheme the respondent continued to be a tenant under the appellants liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent under the Punjab Act. The contention is without merit.

The relevant part of S. 8 of the Act reads:

"8. Vesting of unutilized surplus area in the State Government--Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of S. 15, the surplus area, declared as such under the Punjab law or the Pepsu law, which has not been utilized till the commencement of this Act and the surplus area declared as such under this Act shall, on the date on which possession thereof is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, vest in the State Government, free from all encumbrances.............."

It has been held in Amarjit Singh and Others Vs. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab, Chandigarh and Others, that the surplus area allotted to an eligible tenant under the Punjab Act and with respect to which ownership rights were not conferred before the coming into force of the Act shall not be treated as utilised in the context of the provisions contained in S. 8 of the Act. It is not disputed that the respondent had not been conferred the ownership rights with respect to the disputed area before the Act came into force. It means that the area in dispute shall not be treated as utilised for the purpose of S. 8 of the Act. In other words, the area in dispute shall be covered by S. 8 of the Act and stand vested in the State Government. The area having vested in the Government shall be covered by the Scheme formulated under S. 11(2) of the Act. Para 13 of the Scheme reads:

"Conferment of proprietary rights on tenants allotted surplus land under the Punjab law--A tenant resettled on the surplus area of landowner in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Law and the rules framed thereunder at any time before the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to have been allotted land in accordance with the provisions of this scheme:

...... ...... ...... ......."

The respondent having become allottee of the area in dispute under the Scheme is not to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rend under the Punjab Act.

In view of discussion above, the appellants cannot justifiably assail the order of the learned single Judge. The letters of patent appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.